Go to page

Go to page

EOS 80D + 100-400mm mkii

I missed the touchscreen when I upgraded from the 70D to the 7D Mk. II. I appreciated getting it back when I upgraded to the 5D Mk. IV, but I still prefer the 7D Mk. II thumb switch for toggling between AF area modes over the 5D dual button dance. As such, I would hope that a 7D Mk. III would retain the thumb switch but add a touch screen.

PS - It also wouldn't bother me if it picked up the live-view focus stacking trick from the RP. Kind of a shame that they have not yet retrofit that to the R with a firmware upgrade.

I don't have a dog in this fight but I would observe that the way you have worded your contributions has invited a lot of conflict - even this reply is condescending. But in any case considering yourself less biased still doesn't seem to fit the evidence I've seen here. You're not interested in higher resolution sensors, we get that. Extrapolating anything from that preference is no better than what anyone else here is doing, however superior you might feel.

EOS 6D MK II

Yes, I am aware that some people have a need to twist what I said (such high res is a niche) into something I didn't say (such high res is needed by nobody) so they could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that.

I wasn't extrapolating from my preference, and you think I feel superior, you haven't read what I wrote, but rather put whatever you want in my mouth so you could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that either.

EOR R

Yes, I am aware that some people have a need to twist what I said (such high res is a niche) into something I didn't say (such high res is needed by nobody) so they could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that.

No evidence to contradict my estimate was produced, only evidence to contradict what I didn't say to begin with.

Great. When will you get my point ?

I wasn't extrapolating from my preference, and you think I feel superior, you haven't read what I wrote, but rather put whatever you want in my mouth so you could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that either.

My advice would be, if everyone seems to be misinterpreting you, it's not (just) their comprehension skills that are lacking (or worse a conspiracy to 'twist your words'!), but (also) poor communication on your part. Your being snarky in response to everyone tells me to ignore you in future.

Kodak Brownie

Just yesterday I was working on a 60x40 print based on a 1Ds3 shot ( so 20MP ). There was just enough resolution to achieve it, because of the composition and subject. But don't look too closely at the dog's hair or his eyes.

Don't get me wrong. What I am replying to is the "more megapixels is useless because no-one needs to print huge posters" comments, which are wrong because sometimes they do (as you say) and because there's so much more than just printing large images that a high resolution sensor is useful for.

Canon 5DSR II

My advice would be, if everyone seems to be misinterpreting you, it's not (just) their comprehension skills that are lacking (or worse a conspiracy to 'twist your words'!), but (also) poor communication on your part. Your being snarky in response to everyone tells me to ignore you in future.

EOS M50

Cameras and videos have long since been converging. There is little reason to separate them as video technology grows. Stills will be nothing more than a frame from video. Heck the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II spits out 60 fps. My Pixel 2 XL spits out motion pix. Select a frame, done. The divide of photography and video is an artificial construct in the modern era.

FT-QL

Usually for stills we want to stop motion with faster shutter speeds than we would want to use for video. If you deviate too much from half the frame rate, e. g. 1/60 sec with 30 FPS, the video can look unnatural.

EOR R

Cameras and videos have long since been converging. There is little reason to separate them as video technology grows. Stills will be nothing more than a frame from video. Heck the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II spits out 60 fps. My Pixel 2 XL spits out motion pix. Select a frame, done. The divide of photography and video is an artificial construct in the modern era.

EOS 5D SR

Cameras and videos have long since been converging. There is little reason to separate them as video technology grows. Stills will be nothing more than a frame from video. Heck the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II spits out 60 fps. My Pixel 2 XL spits out motion pix. Select a frame, done. The divide of photography and video is an artificial construct in the modern era.

Comments like this always make me cringe. Stills and video are two very different animals. The essence of video is to capture motion and sound. It is to show subjects moving through space and time. Photography is about stopping time. Carving a split second out of the continuum and holding it up for examination. Certainly the technology of still and motion cameras have been converging, but the thought that you can simply carve out a single frame from a video and have a great picture betrays an ignorance of both still photography and video/film.

It used to until I took that pause and looked at the mechanics. Video is nothing more than a series of stills. Why this is upsetting is beyond me. Well, not really once you factor human emotion. We need - indeed, crave - attention. We're special. What we do is special. But reality says photography is a subset of videography. You can stop video and hence stop time and space, but you have more dynamic range along those dimensions. A camera - at it's heart - is a video camera with an appallingly bad frame per second spec.

Really? You know me? My learning? My experiences? Or that my perspective has value? Hmmm.. bold words from such little background.
One can have multiple perspectives. I get the photo =/= video perspective. As I said, been there,, got the FroKnows t-shirt. But reflection, learning, talking and listening with others shows a whole different perspective. And it's ok. Really. The rational and emotional exists at the same time. But the emotional needs to be tempered with reason and reality and the latter two show (1) the convergence is occurring from a camera equipment standpoint, (2) that construct is an artificial one since the photo tech occurred decades before crude video - what would have happened if the opposite were true with robust video recording/playback in place before stills?), and (3) biological systems (vision & brain) generally from a perception standpoint "records" video, but remembers in both "formats" (e.g. "I can see my child's first steps" vs "I can see that time I saw her face standing in time").

EOS 80D

Yes, I am aware that some people have a need to twist what I said (such high res is a niche) into something I didn't say (such high res is needed by nobody) so they could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that.

Here is a quote from you earlier "Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI". That seems to be saying "(such high res is needed by nobody)". Just saying. You aren't flogging a dying horse, the horse died quite a few posts earlier. You are the soothsayer. You believe if you say it often enough we will all become believers. Give it a break, please.

EOS 5D SR

I know that you don't seem to comprehend the essential nature of still photograph. I am not talking about equipment, I am talking about the essence of the medium. A good place to start would be with John Szarkowski.

EOS M50

I know that you don't seem to comprehend the essential nature of still photograph. I am not talking about equipment, I am talking about the essence of the medium. A good place to start would be with John Szarkowski.

Actually I do - you just don't seem to appreciate the validity of different perspectives. But I can see your love for Szarkowski as he developed a reputation for being autocratic. To paraphrase Szarkowski , "The failure of photography fanaticism in the face of the tsunami of videography stemmed perhaps from the sin of hubris".
By nature, art is mostly BS anyway, or at the least self-indulgent pretentiousness. But I do enjoy it still and find it useful.

@brett.guy.photography

Comments like this always make me cringe. Stills and video are two very different animals. The essence of video is to capture motion and sound. It is to show subjects moving through space and time. Photography is about stopping time. Carving a split second out of the continuum and holding it up for examination. Certainly the technology of still and motion cameras have been converging, but the thought that you can simply carve out a single frame from a video and have a great picture betrays an ignorance of both still photography and video/film.

Absolutely. Taking a single frame from good video would produce a terrible still image as a general rule, as the shutter speeds required to produce good videography rarely match the shutter speed required to produce a good still in the same situation. While there are similarities in the art forms there are also massive differences.